Next-generation cryptographic security, not relying on devices, but depending on isolation architecture

Over the past decade, hardware wallets have been a key consensus for the security of crypto assets, but as on-chain transactions become more frequent and attack methods more sophisticated, the limitations of this approach are beginning to show. Security issues are no longer just about whether private keys are stored offline; they also include transaction signing, online interactions, supply chain trust, and long-term risks posed by future quantum computing. The next generation of cryptographic security is shifting from “relying on a more secure device” to “relying on a more reliable system architecture.”

1. Hardware Wallets: Once the Most Trusted Security Solution

In the field of self-custody of crypto assets, hardware wallets have long been considered the safest choice. Brands like Ledger and Trezor, representing cold storage concepts, have almost become a consensus among many crypto users: Private keys are stored offline, transactions require physical device confirmation, making it difficult for hackers to access user assets directly over the network.

For a long time, this logic held true. A device not connected to the internet can indeed block most remote attacks. For early crypto users, hardware wallets provided a simple, clear, and perceptible sense of security.

But as the scale of crypto assets grows and on-chain transactions become more frequent, attack methods become more complex. A question increasingly becomes critical: Are hardware wallets still sufficiently secure? Are they just the mainstream solution of the current stage, rather than the ultimate form of crypto security?

Against this backdrop, more and more security researchers are focusing on a new direction: Isolated crypto wallets, which protect private keys and transaction signing through clearer system isolation?

2. Rethinking Hardware Wallets: Trust Still Comes with a Cost

Hardware wallets may seem very secure, but their security is actually based on many assumptions.

First, users need to trust the device manufacturer. For example, is the device firmware secure enough? Has the supply chain been tampered with? Has the secure chip been reliably audited? These questions are nearly impossible for ordinary users to verify independently.

Second, firmware updates can also introduce risks. Hardware wallets need to update their systems continuously to fix vulnerabilities and support new features, but users find it hard to judge whether an update is fully trustworthy. Often, users can only choose to trust the manufacturer.

Additionally, the physical device itself also carries risks. It could be lost, stolen, seized, or targeted by physical attacks. Even if the device itself isn’t cracked, the mnemonic phrase used to recover the wallet could become a new risk point.

Therefore, the issue with hardware wallets isn’t that they are “unsafe,” but that their security still depends on the device, manufacturer, and supply chain. For an industry emphasizing decentralization and reducing trust, this dependency is being re-evaluated.

3. Practical Challenges of Hardware Wallets: Always Need to Interact with Online Devices During Transactions

The core security promise of hardware wallets is that private keys never leave the device. But in real-world use, transactions still need to be broadcast to the blockchain network.

This means that when signing transactions, hardware wallets typically need to interact with a phone, computer, or other online device. Whether via USB, Bluetooth, or QR code, this interaction process introduces a potential risk point.

Many attacks do not require directly stealing the private key. Attackers might tamper with transaction data, trick users into signing malicious operations, or use malicious contracts, fake websites, or clipboard hijacking to make users unknowingly perform dangerous actions.

This is also a practical limitation of hardware wallets: The device itself can be offline, but the user’s transaction process is hard to be completely offline.

If users want to further enhance security, they can use more strict air-gapped devices—completely offline, transmitting data only via QR codes or similar methods. But this approach is more complex to operate, and ordinary users find it hard to maintain long-term. Ultimately, most will have to choose between security and convenience.

Therefore, the industry is beginning to consider another possibility: instead of relying on users to operate devices correctly every time, it might be better to design systems that clearly separate private keys, signatures, and online connectivity.

4. Isolated Crypto Wallets: Isolating Risks in System Design

The core idea of isolated crypto wallets is not complicated: Manage private keys, transaction signing, and network broadcasting in separate environments.

Simply put, private keys and signing environments are kept as offline as possible, not directly connected to the internet; the online part only handles sending signed transactions to the blockchain, without access to private keys.

The advantage of this design is that even if the online component is attacked, attackers can only access the signed transaction data, not the private keys. For users, this is equivalent to placing the most critical assets’ keys in a more closed, harder-to-access environment.

This differs from traditional hardware wallets, which rely on a specific device for isolation, whereas isolated crypto wallets emphasize the overall system architecture. Security does not solely depend on a particular hardware device but on whether the keys, signatures, and network are truly separated.

This embodies the idea that “architecture is security”: security isn’t just about buying a secure device, but about isolating threat paths from the start.

5. Post-Quantum Security: Future Risks Entering Practical Discussions Early

Beyond current attack risks, another issue gaining industry attention is quantum computing.

Today, many cryptographic algorithms underpinning security, such as elliptic curve cryptography and RSA, are considered secure in classical computing environments. But if future quantum computers reach sufficient power, these algorithms could be vulnerable to being broken.

This may sound like a distant future problem, but the global cryptography community has already begun preparing. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced the first post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024, indicating that post-quantum security has moved from theoretical discussion to practical preparation.

For crypto assets, this issue is especially critical. Once blockchain assets are exposed to risks, the impact could be long-lasting. More concerning is a type of attack called “collect now, decrypt later,” where attackers gather data today and attempt to decrypt it once quantum computing matures.

Therefore, post-quantum security isn’t something to wait for quantum computers to be fully developed; for long-term asset holders and projects, early planning is part of a security strategy.

6. Zero-Hardware Security Model: Reducing Dependence on a Single Device

Behind the isolated architecture is a new security philosophy.

Traditional hardware wallets reduce risk by using a physical device to store private keys, making it harder for attackers to access them over the network. This approach is effective and has been validated by the market.

But the zero-hardware security model attempts to further reduce dependence on specific devices. It asks: Can system design make certain attack paths inherently difficult to succeed?

This approach brings several changes.

First, users no longer need to fully depend on a particular hardware manufacturer. Second, security is no longer entirely bound to a specific chip or device. Third, if the system itself is open-source and subject to community audits, security assessments become more transparent.

This doesn’t mean hardware wallets have no value. Hardware devices can still be important tools within a security framework. But in the next generation of cryptographic security infrastructure, they may no longer be the sole core, but part of a broader security architecture.

7. Lock.com: An Early Explorer in This Direction

In this field, Lock.com is one of the earlier projects explicitly exploring isolated signature architectures and post-quantum security.

Lock.com is still in early access and has not been fully publicly released. It aims to integrate private key management, offline signing, and post-quantum cryptography within a hardware-free architecture, hoping to reduce reliance on physical devices and manufacturer trust.

Since the project is still in early stages, many technical details and product features need further development. But in terms of direction, it represents a new emerging mindset in the industry: future wallet security may no longer depend solely on device security, but also on system architecture clarity and isolation.

8. Crypto Infrastructure Moving from Single Tools to Complete Systems

The emergence of zero-hardware wallets is not an isolated phenomenon. It reflects an overall upgrade trend in cryptographic infrastructure.

In the past, wallets, communication, storage, and transaction execution were often dispersed across different products. Users had to assemble various tools themselves and bear operational risks. In the future, these functions may be integrated into more comprehensive infrastructure.

Meanwhile, users’ security perceptions are also evolving. In the past, many relied on brand reputation and device trustworthiness. Now, more users and developers focus on whether the code is open-source, whether the system is auditable, and whether the architecture is transparent.

In other words, security is shifting from “trusting the brand” to “understanding and verifying the system.”

Under this trend, the direction represented by Lock.com envisions a next-generation security infrastructure: security that does not depend on a single device or vendor but is embedded into the system architecture itself.

9. The Industry Is Asking a Different Question

The field of crypto security is undergoing a significant change.

In the past, the most common question from users was: Which hardware wallet should I buy?

Now, more and more people are asking: Which security architecture should I trust?

This shift indicates a deeper understanding of security within the industry. Hardware wallets have indeed protected many assets over the past decade, and their historical value is undeniable. But as attack methods evolve, quantum risks emerge, and new isolation architectures appear, whether hardware devices remain the ultimate answer is no longer certain.

The next-generation cryptographic security infrastructure may reduce reliance on a single physical device, instead emphasizing system design, key isolation, and advanced cryptographic schemes.

This transformation has already begun.